Re: [tcpinc] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Amanda Baber <amanda.baber@iana.org> Tue, 14 November 2017 19:39 UTC

Return-Path: <amanda.baber@iana.org>
X-Original-To: tcpinc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpinc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52EDE1288B8; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 11:39:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qVXhEdVhYkwv; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 11:38:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out.west.pexch112.icann.org (pfe112-ca-2.pexch112.icann.org [64.78.40.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B91D6128891; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 11:38:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1178.4; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 11:38:58 -0800
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org ([64.78.40.21]) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG ([64.78.40.21]) with mapi id 15.00.1178.000; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 11:38:58 -0800
From: Amanda Baber <amanda.baber@iana.org>
To: David Mazieres expires 2018-02-11 PST <mazieres-4dwdu2vefe5tt2zbcqtrs98eww@temporary-address.scs.stanford.edu>, "Black, David" <David.Black@dell.com>, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
CC: "tcpinc@ietf.org" <tcpinc@ietf.org>, Kyle Rose <krose@krose.org>, "tcpinc-chairs@ietf.org" <tcpinc-chairs@ietf.org>, "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <ietf@kuehlewind.net>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [tcpinc] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHTWpFJtLjOSSQLGkWnxslSGGU/yqMQuYCAgAABhgCAACMUgIAAAKYAgAAE5YCAATG0gIAAAZkAgAALwQCAAFE3gIAAHmEAgACdFICAACxtgIAAhDwAgADxYIA=
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 19:38:57 +0000
Message-ID: <6163B6E9-CF05-4DB0-880A-98AB0829E2F8@iana.org>
References: <151036581280.449.10740505473540594433.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949362FD495EF@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com> <CABcZeBPfk6Pi=_UPvTBaS9jQBYjExUdqkdX5Q--iUuyCv_qZtw@mail.gmail.com> <CAJU8_nWpVhm4oTT+SLyG-nk=ww7nBU-DaVe86rUU-LGGqJvHvQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBO0TD0KnpTfe6CbHUoiS=FmGiGW6r_mFMH_9bYFWKqKLA@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBNp=1c1cx0+nJezjWy_Q4N9-PUeQuqOU_k7A7KhRj18EQ@mail.gmail.com> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949362FD4BB57@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com> <CABcZeBPL2mVFtsL77Bdr=BUf7cb+qe_+Wxq42AtoohHmSmJaCg@mail.gmail.com> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949362FD4BDAB@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com> <877euu7hy0.fsf@ta.scs.stanford.edu> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949362FD4D450@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com> <87vaieow9k.fsf@ta.scs.stanford.edu> <3C97B6FC-F964-464E-83DD-4843DAFE0424@iana.org> <87o9o5phk7.fsf@ta.scs.stanford.edu>
In-Reply-To: <87o9o5phk7.fsf@ta.scs.stanford.edu>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.27.0.171010
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [192.0.47.234]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="B_3593504339_1196479546"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpinc/ywRHv7o6RaeyPXXXwXHQEt49uE4>
Subject: Re: [tcpinc] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: tcpinc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Working group mailing list for TCP Increased Security \(tcpinc\)" <tcpinc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcpinc>, <mailto:tcpinc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tcpinc/>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpinc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpinc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc>, <mailto:tcpinc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 19:39:01 -0000

Hi David,

See [AB] below.

Thanks,
Amanda

On 11/13/17, 9:15 PM, "David Mazieres" <dm-list-tcpcrypt@scs.stanford.edu>; wrote:

Amanda Baber <amanda.baber@iana.org>; writes:

> Hi David,
>
> See [AB] below for a note about registration procedures.  

Okay, thanks.  Here is my new proposed language for the end of IANA
considerations.  This also reflects a change to address Benoit Claise's
concern that 95 TEP identifiers could prove too few.

   This document defines a 7-bit "glt" field in the range of 0x20-0x7f,
   for which IANA is to create and maintain a new registry entitled "TCP
   encryption protocol identifiers" under the "Transmission Control
   Protocol (TCP) Parameters" registry.  The initial contents of the TCP
   encryption protocol identifier registry is shown in Table 2.  This
   document allocates one TEP identifier (0x20) for experimental use.
   In case the TEP identifier space proves too small, identifiers in the
   range 0x70-0x7f are reserved to enable a future update to this
   document to define extended identifier values.  Assignments are to be
   made under the combined policy "Expert Review with RFC Required" as
   these terms are defined in [RFC8126].  Early allocation [RFC7120]
   should be used to facilitate testing before RFCs are finalized.

         +-----------+------------------------------+-----------+
         | Value     | Meaning                      | Reference |
         +-----------+------------------------------+-----------+
         | 0x20      | Experimental Use             | [RFC-TBD] |
         | 0x70-0x7f | Reserved for extended values | [RFC-TBD] |
         +-----------+------------------------------+-----------+

               Table 2: TCP encryption protocol identifiers

[AB] Yes, this makes sense. I should note that because Expert Review has been added, we would ask the expert(s) to confirm that any Early Allocation request is OK. 

David